View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
3.14159
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Thanks for sharing, see you again in a few more months. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Your post is completely irrelevant to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought. |
Is Tommy Robinson not in jail? Was he not reporting outside a courthouse? Was the trial not a gang of Muslim paedophiles?
I posted something and left the topic open to discussion and most people did just that. You just go on sneering and being out of touch, it's what you do best. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Hi everyone, let's try to remain civil and focused on the topic. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Pies4shaw wrote: | I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought. |
Is Tommy Robinson not in jail? Was he not reporting outside a courthouse? Was the trial not a gang of Muslim paedophiles?
I posted something and left the topic open to discussion and most people did just that. You just go on sneering and being out of touch, it's what you do best. |
He's in jail for contempt of court. This always happens summarily. He didn't get jailed for "reporting". He got jailed for committing a contempt.
The trial was, of course, of some persons accused of certain crimes. Like you (see bold above), he didn't seem to appreciate the distinction between being accused of something and being found guilty of it. That is how he found himself committing a criminal contempt of court. For the second time in 12 months, it seems.
Once might be unlucky. Twice is stupid. He's not a cause. He's a genuine object of derision.
See also http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4852297.htm |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
While it was perhaps beyond the scope of the segment, I feel like I would have liked to see Barry discuss the balance between contempt laws and a free press in more depth after all, just last week, he was expressing displeasure at the media blackout on the super-injunction that shall not be named. Unless one believes in either complete freedom of the press or complete judicial discretion (and it seems that Barry falls somewhere between), I think its worth sketching out exactly where the line should be drawn and thats a discussion thats very much within Media Watchs remit. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | Wokko wrote: | Pies4shaw wrote: | I think his point was that there is no genuine topic for discussion, just fake news, which you were promulgating in your OP. That's 100% correct, I would have thought. |
Is Tommy Robinson not in jail? Was he not reporting outside a courthouse? Was the trial not a gang of Muslim paedophiles?
I posted something and left the topic open to discussion and most people did just that. You just go on sneering and being out of touch, it's what you do best. |
He's in jail for contempt of court. This always happens summarily. He didn't get jailed for "reporting". He got jailed for committing a contempt.
The trial was, of course, of some persons accused of certain crimes. Like you (see bold above), he didn't seem to appreciate the distinction between being accused of something and being found guilty of it. That is how he found himself committing a criminal contempt of court. For the second time in 12 months, it seems.
Once might be unlucky. Twice is stupid. He's not a cause. He's a genuine object of derision.
See also http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4852297.htm |
Correct weight. It was absolutely fake news and nothing to see here. Simply contempt of court.
(I don't think I like the violet font though)
Mind you when I first saw the name I thought of TRB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar_saHB60qU&list=RDar_saHB60qU&t=34 _________________ “I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
Pi
Joined: 13 Feb 2006 Location: SA
|
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
Post subject: | |
|
Well there's a lot of fake news about Robinson.
Here's my favourite piece.
Terrorist Darren Osborne drove a van into a group of worshippers outside an English mosque. The British media then reported on the links between Robinson and Osborne.
The Times headline was "Far-right leaders contacted Darren Osborne before Finsbury Park mosque attack" .
The Independent revealed that Robinson had sent direct messages to Osborne just days before the attack:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/finsbury-park-attack-trial-live-darren-osborne-court-muslims-mosque-van-latest-news-updates-a8173496.html
Robinson personally contacting Osborne before an act of terrorism? Wow. Pretty damning stuff.
Of course, that wasn't what happened.
Osborne was subscribed to a mailing list and had received automated emails from Robinson.
So here, I think, is part of the problem.
The mainstream media, through it's own actions, has become so discredited amongst sections of the community that it's allowed "fake" news, from both the left and the right, to promulgate. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Independent can be a bit of a suspect publication in terms of its accuracy, I have to say kind of a Daily Mail for centre-left readers. I think there are better publications out there that have earned their reputations for fact-checking and careful reporting, notwithstanding their capacity to occasionally get swept away by hysteria (did anyone mention The New York Times?). _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
The best part of that article is that the accused raged "against Lily Allen".
It is not "fake news" to report the prosecution's opening. It may be that the prosecution was gilding the lily (no pen intunded) but if the prosecution did say that "Mr Robinson and Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, sent Mr Osborne messages days before the attack", as the article states (in terms), then the headline (which we must take on trust, since it is no longer the headline that appears when one opens that link) is apt. Sadly, Counsel (or even, God forbid, Senior Counsel) in a matter do occasionally open their case at a level that some (of the more circumspect) of us might say was an over-reach. That's why, after the opening, we have evidence to see whether the prosecution's opening is sustainable.
The report says that "Mr Robinson and Jayda Fransen, the deputy leader of Britain First, sent Mr Osborne messages days before the attack" is what the jury heard. Either it was said in front of the jury, or it wasn't. If it wasn't the journalist got it wrong. If it was, then the prosecutor said it and it can be reported. It is not the reporter's job to "fact check" whether what the prosecution says in opening to the jury was accurate - that's the purpose of having a trial and letting a jury decide. The journalist's responsibility is to (do their best to) report accurately that which was said in Court.
There is a whole separate discussion to be had about whether journalists should ever be allowed to report on Court proceedings, in the running - especially given the extraordinary potential for besmirching reputations. when it's reported inaccurately. That probably isn't a matter of paramount significance in a trial like the one the subject of the report. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
What would be the reporter's job to fact check whether what the prosecution says in opening to the jury was accurate - that's the purpose of having a trial and letting a jury decide? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Stop sneering, Hal. It's unbecoming. |
|
|
|
|
|